Bloomingpedia talk:Proposed Copyrights

Should we use the GFDL?

I'd like to have the council vote on whether we should use the GNU Free Documentation License as the license that we use to cover contributions to Bloomingpedia. Please put Yes, No or Undecided along with your name (use four tildes) next to it. We will still give some explaination on the Bloomingpedia:Copyrights page as Wikipedia does, but the license itself would be the GFDL. A simple majority rules what we do on this matter.

Discussion

• I was worried about contributed content becoming shanghai'd by the GFDL, such as images that may not have as lenient of a copyright as the GFDL. However, I think that Section 7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS may alleviate this problem. Since Bloomingpedia would qualify as an aggregate, contributed images will retain their original copyrights and no bamboozling of rights should occur. Would you say that this is an accurate assessment? I'm going to vote yes based on my thoughts here. Chris Eller 10:31, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Yes, I think that's right. -- Mark 19:38, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Votes

• Yes - Mark 08:59, 13 December 2006 (EST)
• Yes - Chris Eller 10:31, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Approval of this page for the Bloomingpedia:Copyrights page

I'd like open this up for comments now. I've Converted the Wikipedia Copyrights page for our use. Please let me know what should be changed or if you are fine with it as it is. -- Mark 20:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)